The Use Of "Know" And "True" Within The Mormon Faith.

[Gervin]

Yes, but truth itself is objective, and if you know any truth you know it objectively, too.

I am not denying objective truth, but I believe objective truth has to known and then appropriated subjectively. I don't believe you can amass enough proofs to make the object of faith probable

Realizing many people can come to know the same truth should tell you something is up. Do you at least agree that truth, itself, is objective?

I don't deny objective or propositional truth but believe that religious have to be appropriated subjectively to have value for or an effect on, the thinker. "Many people" knowing "the same truth" isn't of much use to a person coming at this from a philosophical POV if the thinker can't personally appropriate it for himself.

What paradox? I see no paradox.

Perhaps it would help me if you explained what you mean by paradox. I still see no paradox. I see harmony and things working together.

The paradox of a fully human and fully divine Christ. A paradox is a mystery - it isn't a contradiction - but a way to see the truth (the Truth - Christ) through the means by which he instructed: faith.

Your spirit is divine. You acknowledge at least that much, don't you?

I don't know what you mean by divine.

edited to add: I've formed much of my opinions in this area from Soren Kierkegaard's "

Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments: A Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation, An Existential Contribution" and "Practice in Christianity." Those two books were life-changers in terms of thinking, knowledge and understanding subjectivity and objectivity.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Gervin

[Ahab]

That's odd. I could have sworn that you have been dancing since you got here. Perhaps it was just a tick.

But, I should stop now since I can see that the negative attention is encouraging you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've been hoping you would stop showing me negative attention once you could see I would continue to be nice to you, even though you were not nice to me, but it seems that no matter what I say you would rather continue to be rude, rather than to treat me with some common courtesy. I think this is probably the last time I'll be speaking directly to you. I expect that you'll probably be happy to hear this.

[Ahab]

I am not denying objective truth, but I believe objective truth has to known and then appropriated subjectively. I don't believe you can amass enough proofs to make the object of faith probable.

It seems to me that you are denying the objective truth, even though you are saying you're not. What do you think you have when you start to amass any "proof" if not an object of faith that proves the truth by showing that it actually is?

I don't deny objective or propositional truth but believe that religious have to be appropriated subjectively to have value for or an effect on, the thinker. "Many people" knowing "the same truth" isn't of much use to a person coming at this from a philosophical POV if the thinker can't personally appropriate it for himself.

Any person who wants to know the objective truth simply needs to appropriate the truth when he finds it, instead of denying the truth he has found. Many people do that by denying the truth when it is right in front of them, just as some people denied our Savior when he was standing in front of them as a mortal. The truth is all around us and all we need to do is see it. We can't help those who choose to be blind.

The paradox of a fully human and fully divine Christ. A paradox is a mystery - it isn't a contradiction - but a way to see the truth (the Truth - Christ) through the means by which he instructed: faith.

So you're using the word "paradox" to refer to a way to see truth? If it is obvious is it still a paradox to you? Sorry if I don't understand you, but I'm having trouble seeing how seeing truth is a paradox for you, or to anyone else.

I don't know what you mean by divine.

The word divine means, at least to me, related to the nature of God, and I'm saying we are divine because we have the nature of God (our Father) as his children.

edited to add: I've formed much of my opinions in this area from Soren Kierkegaard's "

Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments: A Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation, An Existential Contribution" and "Practice in Christianity." Those two books were life-changers in terms of thinking, knowledge and understanding subjectivity and objectivity.

Hmm. Okay. I prefer to learn directly from God.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

edited to add: I've formed much of my opinions in this area from Soren Kierkegaard's "

Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments: A Mimical-Pathetical-Dialectical Compilation, An Existential Contribution" and "Practice in Christianity." Those two books were life-changers in terms of thinking, knowledge and understanding subjectivity and objectivity.

Good stuff!

[mfbukowski]

Hmm. Okay. I prefer to learn directly from God.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

We do too but one must also be able to communicate with men if you care about such things, and to do that you need to use their language about these matters and at least to pretend not to be arrogant. You know, those silly social skills and such that good communication requires.

[Ahab]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

We do too but one must also be able to communicate with men if you care about such things, and to do that you need to use their language about these matters and at least to pretend not to be arrogant. You know, those silly social skills and such that good communication requires.

I find it useful to realize that those who tell me I'm arrogant and lacking in social skills are those who presume they are in a position to say those things to me.

If I ever felt the urge to tell someone he was arrogant, or lacking in social skills, or anything of that nature, I would do my best to fight off the temptation, and over the years I've gotten to be pretty good at controlling my tongue and my fingers when I'm typing something.

My main point in sharing my knowledge here is to share what God has taught me while I share how I learn from God, which I know is what and the way God will teach everybody who cares to learn directly from him. Yet I have never said people should do what I tell them, even though I know my counsel is good, because I know people should learn directly from God. That doesn't and shouldn't stop me from sharing what know, though, when I know I have learned something from God, and it shouldn't stop you or anyone else from listening to me or treating me with common courtesy.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

I find it useful to realize that those who tell me I'm arrogant and lacking in social skills are those who presume they are in a position to say those things to me.

If I ever felt the urge to tell someone he was arrogant, or lacking in social skills, or anything of that nature, I would do my best to fight off the temptation, and over the years I've gotten to be pretty good at controlling my tongue and my fingers when I'm typing something.

My main point in sharing my knowledge here is to share what God has taught me while I share how I learn from God, which I know is what and the way God will teach everybody who cares to learn directly from him. Yet I have never said people should do what I tell them, even though I know my counsel is good, because I know people should learn directly from God. That doesn't and shouldn't stop me from sharing what know, though, when I know I have learned something from God, and it shouldn't stop you or anyone else from listening to me or treating me with common courtesy.

Good for you.

I stand corrected and apologize. I was over at the mormon dis board and got plenty of dissing and I was probably reacting to that.

Sorry about that. You correctly put me in my place.

[mnn727]

Belief crumbles under the onslaught of negativity from details of church history, science, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham.

No it doesn't. I believe, I have faith. I know all about Church history, etc and its never caused a problem with my belief.

Its all about how you define "know" I don't KNOW the Church is true, but I have faith and believe it is.

It is still possible we're all fooling ourselves and we're really just worm food after death, the human mind is a powerful thing. You can talk yourself into believing all sorts of things.

Edited August 2, 2012 by mnn727

[Ahab]

No it doesn't. I believe, I have faith. I know all about Church history, etc and its never caused a problem with my belief.

Its all about how you define "know" I don't KNOW the Church is true, but I have faith and believe it is.

It is still possible we're all fooling ourselves and we're really just worm food after death, the human mind is a powerful thing. You can talk yourself into believing all sorts of things.

We can also believe things just because we want to, like maybe because there's something good we get out of believing in it and we would rather believe it instead of not believe it.

There's a movie called Secondhand Lions with what's called part of a man speech that goes something like this:

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honour, courage and virtue mean everything ; that power and money ... money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. And I want you to remember this.... that love....true love never dies ! Remember that boy ... remember that. Doesn't matter if it is true or not, a man should believe in those things , because those are the things worth believing in...... got that ? "

I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't try to know what is really true or real in this world, or universe. I do know the Church is what it claims to be, and I know the doctrine is true, but if I didn't I would probably still like to believe in it anyway. There's nothing better to believe in, as far as I know.

[CASteinman]

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honour, courage and virtue mean everything ; that power and money ... money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. And I want you to remember this.... that love....true love never dies ! Remember that boy ... remember that. Doesn't matter if it is true or not, a man should believe in those things , because those are the things worth believing in...... got that ? "

I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't try to know what is really true or real in this world, or universe. I do know the Church is what it claims to be, and I know the doctrine is true, but if I didn't I would probably still like to believe in it anyway. There's nothing better to believe in, as far as I know.

This.

Plus +1

Edited August 2, 2012 by CASteinman

[mfbukowski]

This.

Plus +1

I'll second that.

[CASteinman]

I'll second that.

It falls under AoF #13: We follow the admonition of Paul- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

[mfbukowski]

It falls under AoF #13: We follow the admonition of Paul- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

To me, this is the key:

I do know the Church is what it claims to be, and I know the doctrine is true, but if I didn't I would probably still like to believe in it anyway. There's nothing better to believe in, as far as I know.

To me that captures the whole thread. It shows a subjective certainty of belief which qualifies therefore as "knowledge", like "I know my wife loves me" does.

The key to me is that it cannot be proven "true" in an objective scientific sense because statements about religion are not those kinds of statements. They are not scientific. You cannot scientifically prove that your wife loves you or that murdering babies is wrong, but you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt and I think the word "know" is totally appropriate in this context- in fact we use that word this way all the time.

But the total clincher is the fact that in my opinion, there is no set of beliefs - no model for what man is and what man can become (an unprovable idea in the first place) which is better suited to ennoble mankind, and to spur them on to become better human beings, than to believe that man is a god in embryo and has the potential to become an idealized, perfected being.

Seeing us as participants in a Divine Community, a Family in which we react with each other here, having faith that it will continue into the eternities, is about the best model and ideal we can have to raise the human family to our full potential to "fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein".

Indeed,

There's nothing better to believe in, as far as I know.

[Lamanite]

Just checked back in and was surprised to see this thread still going. Over the last few days I've talked to "lay" members of the Church who have not had exposure to advanced philosophy/theology/epistemology. There seems to be two general Mormon responses.

To some their expressions of "Know" and "True" were literal expressions of absolute knowledge. And when they shared their testimony (to Mormon or non-Mormon) it is their belief that they are expressing absolute Knowledge given to them by God. The same beliefs are applied to their interpretation of scripture.

To others that I spoke with they understood Know and True, (within the context of testimonies) as cultural terms that represent faithful beliefs. As far as scriptural interpretation most believed that when these types of words or phrases are used scripturally they represent Knowledge and Truth (both capitalized). Very few were willing accept a less absolute definition when dealing with scripture, nor were any willing to make certain words or phrases conditional.

As far as my own personal opinion is concerned, I operate under epistemological and philosophical definitions for Know and True when dealing with my own subjective religious beliefs and experiences. However, no matter what I think would be best for the religious community, I will continue to conform to the culturally accepted expressions of Testimony. As far as the scriptures go, I would hope that every single person within the Church would attempt to define/understand/qualify these types of words and phrases so as to increase his/her discipleship and conversion. Literalism as a singular scriptural hermeneutic is rarely sufficient to sustain and stimulate the required successive conversions proscribed by the Lord.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 3, 2012 by Lamanite

[Ahab]

The key to me is that it cannot be proven "true" in an objective scientific sense because statements about religion are not those kinds of statements. They are not scientific.

Well, some statements are and some aren't. All it takes to know something in an objective scientific sense is to be able to see it, or hear it, or touch it, or taste it, or smell it, and we can know many things about religion in that way.

You cannot scientifically prove that your wife loves you or that murdering babies is wrong, but you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt and I think the word "know" is totally appropriate in this context- in fact we use that word this way all the time.

Contact. Jodie Foster. Excellent acting. I like watching it with soda and popcorn.

The problem is that right and wrong, or good and evil, or love and hate, or faith and doubt... you know, things like that.. thoughts and feelings... aren't things that can be scientifically proven in an objective scientific sense.

You can't plop down some faith on a table to show a scientist what it looks like anymore than you can plop down some love, or something funny. Some scientists would balk and say they don't see anything to prove to them what those thoughts and feelings really are... unless maybe they also know, something, from something other than a objective scientific sense.

But the total clincher is the fact that in my opinion, there is no set of beliefs - no model for what man is and what man can become (an unprovable idea in the first place) which is better suited to ennoble mankind, and to spur them on to become better human beings, than to believe that man is a god in embryo and has the potential to become an idealized, perfected being.

A god in embryo vs the same kind of being as God but not as perfect as he is yet.

... and we have that potential because we are children of God... or, God ourselves, but not done yet.

Seeing us as participants in a Divine Community, a Family in which we react with each other here, having faith that it will continue into the eternities, is about the best model and ideal we can have to raise the human family to our full potential to "fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein".

Here, here. And there, there too.

[mfbukowski]

Well, some statements are and some aren't. All it takes to know something in an objective scientific sense is to be able to see it, or hear it, or touch it, or taste it, or smell it, and we can know many things about religion in that way.

Maybe this would be a place where we could communicate better between us. I feel I have not been successful in doing that before but I am willing to try again.

What I mean by "objective" is that you and I both make the same sensory observation and everyone else in the world would agree with us.

So we both agree that a car is red or the "cat is on the mat" and everyone else does, so that becomes an "objective" statement.

On the other hand, both of us have had the experience of having a witness by the Holy Ghost that "the church is true" by a certain feeling we have received on numerous occasions. I think that feeling is probably similar for both of us- but I can't prove that it is any more than I can prove that our experience of red is the same, but of course I suspect it is the same.

But since everyone in the world would agree with both of us that the car is red- and not everyone would agree with us that the "church is true", hte statement about the church is not an "objective fact".

Each of us have had the same subjective experience of receiving a testimony by the HG but others who have not received that testimony might think we were nuts- so that testimony is not "objective" though the two of us would agree on it.

[CASteinman]

The key to me is that it cannot be proven "true" in an objective scientific sense because statements about religion are not those kinds of statements.

I do not entirely believe that.

[mfbukowski]

I do not entirely believe that.

Well when you figure out a scientific test to show me that Jesus was the Son of God, by all means let me know.

I personally know it is true, because God told me that it is, but proving it objectively is another thing. And yes, for all you atheists out there, I know how looney that sounds because I was once on your side of the fence.

[mfbukowski]

Contact. Jodie Foster. Excellent acting. I like watching it with soda and popcorn.

Yep. Great movie and right on point as far as I am concerned. That's exactly what it's like

[mfbukowski]

Just checked back in and was surprised to see this thread still going. Over the last few days I've talked to "lay" members of the Church who have not had exposure to advanced philosophy/theology/epistemology. There seems to be two general Mormon responses.

To some their expressions of "Know" and "True" were literal expressions of absolute knowledge. And when they shared their testimony (to Mormon or non-Mormon) it is their belief that they are expressing absolute Knowledge given to them by God. The same beliefs are applied to their interpretation of scripture.

To others that I spoke with they understood Know and True, (within the context of testimonies) as cultural terms that represent faithful beliefs. As far as scriptural interpretation most believed that when these types of words or phrases are used scripturally they represent Knowledge and Truth (both capitalized). Very few were willing accept a less absolute definition when dealing with scripture, nor were any willing to make certain words or phrases conditional.

As far as my own personal opinion is concerned, I operate under epistemological and philosophical definitions for Know and True when dealing with my own subjective religious beliefs and experiences. However, no matter what I think would be best for the religious community, I will continue to conform to the culturally accepted expressions of Testimony. As far as the scriptures go, I would hope that every single person within the Church would attempt to define/understand/qualify these types of words and phrases so as to increase his/her discipleship and conversion. Literalism as a singular scriptural hermeneutic is rarely sufficient to sustain and stimulate the required successive conversions proscribed by the Lord.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Totally agree.

I think that what learning this stuff does, is give us an additional perspective on all this but we need to realize it is no more than that- one perspective among many others.

Imagine looking at a square table and drawing it. Your final result will depend on your point of view. The image of the table will not be "square" unless you are seeing it from directly above, but from that perspective it might actually be hard to recognize it as a "table" at all, because perhaps a photograph of a room from the ceiling will just show a green square and from that perspective it might not be identifiable.

If you are standing at some distance from the table, it will appear as perhaps a parallelogram and at first glance you might not know that it is "square".

Directly from the side, all you will see is the legs and the side, and and again perhaps you might not see it as a table, but you will certainly not know it is "square". In fact, from the side, if the legs are longer than the top nothing about the image you see will be square at all.

The best way to "know" the most about the table is to see it from all angles and perspectives- to see how the legs are attached, if there is a label on the bottom, casters on the legs etc.

But if you have never seen a card table with a green felt top, you might not know the function of the table even after you have examined it carefully from an "objective" perspective.

Further, suppose this is the very table at which Wild Bill Hickok was shot. (I don't even know if he was shot like that- it is just an example)

It might be worth a million dollars as an historical artifact.

So there are entire cultural dimensions to this simple table that have no bearing on what you first see. You don't see its function, you don't see its history, you don't see its significance to a collector who will pay what seems like a ridiculous sum to you, just to own this object you at first saw as a "green square" in a shot from the ceiling.

And there is no way scientifically to measure the "significance" of this table which would cause a collector to pay a huge sum for it. That significance and it subsequent price is totally subjective- yet in an auction that significance becomes nearly objective.

But was it wrong to see it as a "green square"? No, indeed it is all of these things from each perspective. None of them was wrong- all were right from their point of view.

"But it has to be one or the other, it can't be BOTH" someone might say. "One HAS to be True!"

But to say that seeing it from one point of view is THE "correct" one, absolutely, is just short sighted. It's not necessarily "wrong", it just doesn't capture the full reality. That is where dogmatism enters the view, be it in either science OR religion.

So all you can do at that point is hope to show them different perspectives, just to show them that different perspectives, not that you are "right" and they are "wrong"

That's the way I feel a lot on this board!

Edited August 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

What's the Mona Lisa worth?

Totally subjective but put it up for auction and you will get some people who think they know.

Others will disagree. But where is the "Truth"?

Edited August 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CASteinman]

Totally subjective but put it up for auction and you will get some people who think they know.

When the auction is completed, you will know for sure if you are talking about worth being valued in currency.

Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Well when you figure out a scientific test to show me that Jesus was the Son of God, by all means let me know.

Wouldn't DNA be one way?

[Lamanite]

I think that what learning this stuff does, is give us an additional perspective on all this but we need to realize it is no more than that- one perspective among many others.

Robert Millet spoke about this concept in one of his talks or publications, I just which I could remember which one. If I'll remember or find it I will post the relevant passages.

Learning about subjects that are not salvific has at times borne spiritual fruit that has Eternal qualities. Researching subjects that seem completely cerebral has at times colored the lens through which I am able to "see things as they really are."

As for the current topic of this thread, it has allowed me the opportunity to refine my understanding of Truth and how I express it as a Mormon. It has also allowed me to better understand the epistemological claims the Church has made doctrinally, through Prophets/Leaders, and through the general membership.

In the end, I feel like I'm better off for the experience. Do I think every member would benefit from the same study and dialogue? Nope. Is that good or bad? Yes. :-)

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 4, 2012 by Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

In the end, I feel like I'm better off for the experience. Do I think every member would benefit from the same study and dialogue? Nope. Is that good or bad? Yes. :-)

I know what you mean. The problem is the paradigm shift necessary to start thinking this way- that seems to be what many people have a problem with. I guess I was fortunate because I made the shift before I found the church and so have always seen these religious truths that way. I have been thinking this way for 40 years and now the whole idea of some kind of world beyond what we all actually experience with all its variation in perspectives is just absurd to me now.

The idea that truth is a property of sentences and sentences are just ultimately interpretations of experience really strikes people the wrong way but I think the position is unassailable.

The only way of even discussing the problem is in language, which is subject to interpretation. There is nothing you can say to argue that in the final analysis we are not ultimately talking about words and each others interpretation of them, because the only way to make the argument is by expressing your interpretation of words. It is inescapable. The scientist ends up talking about and interpreting words and so does the theologian

Once you see human experience as one whole with no way to communicate it but language, then the objective and subjective become two sides of the same coin and inseparable, and just as valuable in their respective spheres. We cannot survive without both of them.

We all live in the subjective every minute of our lives, but if we do not acknowledge the limits of the objective we cannot survive.

Edited August 4, 2012 by mfbukowski